GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Fact checking Sarah Palin's Speech (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=852748)

Paper_Amar 09-04-2008 11:58 AM
Fact checking Sarah Palin's Speech
 
Tsk Tsk Tsk

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4414049.shtml

(Political Animal) Factchecking Palin
Quote:
I thought Palin's speech was quite good: well-written, well delivered. And, as I said earlier, I think she's a genuinely engaging person, and comes across very well. There were just a couple of problems. One, which I have seen people notice, but which I suspect won't be a big deal for a lot of voters, is that it had very little substance. The other, which the commenters I saw on TV for some reason neglected to mention, was that she told a lot of lies. A few that stood out for me, or that I spotted in my quick run-through of some blogs:

Palin: "To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters. I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House."



Sarah Palin might have changed her mind on this one recently. However, a comment here notes that Palin actually slashed funding for schools for special needs kids by 62%. Budgets: FY 2007 (pre-Palin), 2008, 2009 (all pdfs).

Palin: "As for my running mate, you can be certain that wherever he goes, and whoever is listening, John McCain is the same man."



Steve's list of McCain flip-flops is here. See for yourself whether constancy is, in fact, John McCain's middle name.

Palin: "I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves."



Just to reiterate what others have said: Congress' requirement that funds be spent on that bridge (aka the 'earmark') were removed before Sarah Palin became governor. She was therefore in no position to tell Congress anything about the bridge, one way or the other. During her campaign, she said she supported funding for the bridge. Brad Plumer, citing the Anchorage Dialy News via Nexis:

"5. Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?

Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now--while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."



Later, she accepted the money -- now not restricted by an earmark -- and used it for other infrastructure projects. Here's her statement about why she wasn't building the bridge (also via Plumer.) Decide for yourselves what role a principled opposition to earmark funding plays in it. Hint: here's what residents of Ketchikan AK said when they heard her recent remarks:

"In the city Ketchikan, the planned site of the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere," political leaders of both parties said the claim was false and a betrayal of their community, because she had supported the bridge and the earmark for it secured by Alaska's Congressional delegation during her run for governor. (..)

"People are learning that she pandered to us by saying, I'm for this' ... and then when she found it was politically advantageous for her nationally, abruptly she starts using the very term that she said was insulting," Weinstein said."


Palin: "But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate."



Ha, ha, ha. I gave a rundown of Obama's accomplishments in the Senate here. They include the Lugar-Obama bill on nonproliferation, and an ethics reform package that the Washington Post called "the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet." Ruth Marcus summarizes his record on reform:

"He helped pass a far-reaching ethics and campaign finance bill in the Illinois state Senate and made the issue a priority on arriving in Washington. Much to the displeasure of his colleagues, Obama promoted an outside commission to handle Senate ethics complaints. He co-authored the lobbying reform bill awaiting President Bush's signature and pushed -- again to the dismay of some colleagues -- to include a provision requiring lawmakers to report the names of their lobbyist-bundlers. He has co-sponsored bills to overhaul the presidential public financing system and public financing of Senate campaigns."



Not a single major law or reform, indeed.

And I wasn't aware that writing memoirs was something to be ashamed of. Obama has, in fact, written only one. McCain (with Mark Salter) has written at least two.

Palin: "America needs more energy ... our opponent is against producing it."



No -- he plans to develop a lot more energy than John McCain does. It's just that a lot of it is renewable, not carbon-based. Moreover, Obama hasn't skipped the last eight votes on renewable energy.

Palin: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes ... raise payroll taxes ... raise investment income taxes ... raise the death tax ... raise business taxes ... and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars. My sister Heather and her husband have just built a service station that's now opened for business - like millions of others who run small businesses. How are they going to be any better off if taxes go up?"



Well, it all depends whose taxes go up, doesn't it? If Heather and her husband make less than $250,000, their taxes will not go up. Most Americans will pay less in taxes under Obama's plan than under McCain's. So they might well be better off.

Those are just the falsehoods that leapt to mind. I'm sure there are others.

Whether or not Sarah Palin's engaging personality matters more than the fact that she tells lies depends a lot on the media, and whether they allow her to say that she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere, or that Obama has neer authored a major law or reform, without calling her on it. I hope they do. But I'm not holding my breath.

tony286 09-04-2008 12:03 PM
Why am I not surprised.

Drake 09-04-2008 12:07 PM
More fact checking finds:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/...cvn_fact_check

stickyfingerz 09-04-2008 12:08 PM
The more in an uproar to "fact find" dems get, the more they are afraid of the outcome of the election. :2 cents:

undersoul 09-04-2008 12:08 PM
just stand up there and lie, lie, lie

it's ok, most people buy it.

Ayla_SquareTurtle 09-04-2008 12:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 14708490)
The more in an uproar to "fact find" dems get, the more they are afraid of the outcome of the election. :2 cents:
Right, because facts have nothing to do with politics.

stickyfingerz 09-04-2008 12:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayla_SquareTurtle (Post 14708499)
Right, because facts have nothing to do with politics.
Yup I agree. Thank God that the Dems are always 100% truthful. phew.

tony286 09-04-2008 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 14708490)
The more in an uproar to "fact find" dems get, the more they are afraid of the outcome of the election. :2 cents:
like the right doesnt do this? please stop. Actually my friend you should be afraid of what happens if they win. News Flash you produce porn. Go look up porn under the reagan and nixon years.

leedsfan 09-04-2008 12:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 14708490)
The more in an uproar to "fact find" dems get, the more they are afraid of the outcome of the election. :2 cents:
i think you'll find checking facts is pretty important no matter what party you support. I have a site for sale that gets 50 billion uniques a minute, want to buy it...no need to check the facts though right?

fatfoo 09-04-2008 12:15 PM
Not surprising indeed.....

pocketkangaroo 09-04-2008 12:17 PM
Conservatives in the porn industry, makes no sense at all.

Brujah 09-04-2008 12:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 14708490)
The more in an uproar to "fact find" dems get, the more they are afraid of the outcome of the election. :2 cents:
Scary isn't it? That you're already to a point where you've fallen into blind faith so easily in politics and possibly religion? So much that you don't even consider whatever truths might be presented to you? I think that's the real danger.

Vexes 09-04-2008 12:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by undersoul (Post 14708491)
just stand up there and lie, lie, lie

it's ok, most people buy it.
You just described 100% politicians.
:pimp

Libertine 09-04-2008 12:22 PM
When you want facts, reading partisan bloggers isn't exactly the most productive course of action.

http://factcheck.org/ <- rather better.

Drake 09-04-2008 12:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 14708490)
The more in an uproar to "fact find" dems get, the more they are afraid of the outcome of the election. :2 cents:
That's a given, in a close race.

tony286 09-04-2008 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine (Post 14708549)
When you want facts, reading partisan bloggers isn't exactly the most productive course of action.

http://factcheck.org/ <- rather better.
I find it funny they had the going over of obama's speech line by line the next day but for Sarah there is silence so far.

directfiesta 09-04-2008 12:27 PM
The new FoxNews spin:

" She runs the biggest state " .... :1orglaugh

So the governor of Alaska is way more qualified then the one of Florida, California or Texas because ... it is bigger ....

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

pocketkangaroo 09-04-2008 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by directfiesta (Post 14708578)
The new FoxNews spin:

" She runs the biggest state " .... :1orglaugh

So the governor of Alaska is way more qualified then the one of Florida, California or Texas because ... it is bigger ....

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh
That's nothing. A guy on Fox News said that she had foreign policy experience because her state was close to Russia.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=KDmNk23vEYI

Ayla_SquareTurtle 09-04-2008 12:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 14708507)
Yup I agree. Thank God that the Dems are always 100% truthful. phew.
I wasn't sticking up for the dems. I'm not one. I just don't understand the problem with making sure the things politicians say are actually true. That's the way it should be.

stickyfingerz 09-04-2008 12:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brujah (Post 14708544)
Scary isn't it? That you're already to a point where you've fallen into blind faith so easily in politics and possibly religion? So much that you don't even consider whatever truths might be presented to you? I think that's the real danger.
Pretty much an Atheist currently, and at least an Agnostic. Please try again.

Cracks me up though to see all the people that think Dems support porn. Hysterical.

TheSenator 09-04-2008 12:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo (Post 14708525)
Conservatives in the porn industry, makes no sense at all.
They must have some thing wrong in their thought process.

Brujah 09-04-2008 12:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 14708692)
Pretty much an Atheist currently, and at least an Agnostic. Please try again.
I said you had blind faith in politics, based on your comments against fact finding to discover truth. I added POSSIBLY religion too? You stated otherwise. I have no reason not to believe you yet.

Quote:
Cracks me up though to see all the people that think Dems support porn. Hysterical.
I don't think that Dems support porn. I did read about the War on Porn however, and how the Bush administration blamed Janet Reno and Clinton for being soft on porn and not pursuing obscenity prosecutions.

tony286 09-04-2008 12:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 14708692)
Pretty much an Atheist currently, and at least an Agnostic. Please try again.

Cracks me up though to see all the people that think Dems support porn. Hysterical.
if you look at the facts not whats in your head. They dont support porn but they have better things to do with there time. Anytime we are fucked with its during republican admins not spin fact.
If it wasnt for Janet Reno thinking going after adult porn was a waste of resources you would be giving guitar lessons right now for aliving. lol

Libertine 09-04-2008 12:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony404 (Post 14708576)
I find it funny they had the going over of obama's speech line by line the next day but for Sarah there is silence so far.
They'll get to her speech soon enough, and you can be entirely sure that they'll be fairly objective in shooting down lies and misleading statements.

While FactCheck might be wrong at times, when you start implying that they're partisan, it's time to look at just how objective you yourself are.

tony286 09-04-2008 12:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brujah (Post 14708716)
I said you had blind faith in politics, based on your comments against fact finding to discover truth. I added POSSIBLY religion too? You stated otherwise. I have no reason not to believe you yet.



I don't think that Dems support porn. I did read about the War on Porn however, and how the Bush administration blamed Janet Reno and Clinton for being soft on porn and not pursuing obscenity prosecutions.
If 911 didnt happen porn was going to be job one for ashcroft. Also sticky talk to adam and eve during the reagan years spent over a million dollars fighting the government.

Brujah 09-04-2008 12:58 PM
FactCheck is a good site. It's worth exploring their reviews. Of course, if you just want to debate partisan views.. avoid it because we all know you aren't really interested in the truth anyway.

Fight the Partisan Blind Faith!

tony286 09-04-2008 12:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine (Post 14708734)
They'll get to her speech soon enough, and you can be entirely sure that they'll be fairly objective in shooting down lies and misleading statements.

While FactCheck might be wrong at times, when you start implying that they're partisan, it's time to look at just how objective you yourself are.
Well it seemed to me they liked slamming obama more than McCain so I fired up old google and found this:

We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit, "consumer advocate" for voters
that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S.
politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major
U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches,
interviews, and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices
of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge
and understanding.

The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter
Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the
University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at
the local, state, and federal levels.
The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions,
political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded
primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.

It sounds nice enough, but the problem is it's funding couldn't come
from a more partisan source. Despite a lengthy list of political
donations, Leonore Annenberg, the Trustee of the foundation, and the
late Walter Annenberg have never made a donation do a democratic
candidate. Not ever. Here's the list of donations: (You can search for
yourself here)

ANNENBERG, LEONORE RADNOR, PA 19087 ANNENBERG FOUNDATION

SANTORUM, RICHARD J
VIA SANTORUM 2006


06/24/2005
1000.00
25020261332


ANNENBERG, LEONORE
RADNOR, PA 19087
ANNENBERG FOUNDATION/TRUSTEE

MEIER, RAYMOND
VIA RAY MEIER FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE


11/07/2006
526.00
26940731526


ANNENBERG, LEONORE
WAYNE, PA 19087
ANNENBERG FOUNDATION/TRUSTEE

SHAW, E CLAY JR
VIA FRIENDS OF CLAY SHAW


11/04/2006
526.00
26930675393


ANNENBERG, WALTER H
ST DAVIDS, PA 19087
ANNENBERG FOUNDATION

CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN PARTY/V8


05/17/2000
5000.00
20035834450

Joint Fundraising Contributions

These are contributions to committees who are raising funds to be
distributed to other committees. The breakdown of these contributions
to their final recipients may appear below

ANNENBERG, LEONORE
RADNOR, PA 19087
ANNENBERG FOUNDATION/TRUSTEE

2006 JOINT CANDIDATE COMMITTEE


10/27/2006
10000.00
26930595960


Total Joint Fundraising: 10000.00

Recipient of Joint Fundraiser Contributions

These are the Final Recipients of Joint Fundraising Contributions

ANNENBERG, LEONORE
RADNOR, PA 19087
ANNENBERG FOUNDATION

BLASDEL, CHUCK
VIA BLASDEL FOR CONGRESS


10/27/2006
526.00
26930710238

DEWINE, RICHARD MICHAEL
VIA MIKE DEWINE FOR US SENATE


11/06/2006
526.00
26021101154

MN-06 CONGRESSIONAL VICTORY COMMITTEE


11/02/2006
526.00
26930599050

NY-24 CONGRESSIONAL VICTORY COMMITTEE


11/02/2006
526.00
27990271976

SODREL, MICHAEL E.
VIA FRIENDS OF MIKE SODREL


11/04/2006
526.00
26940818710

WHALEN, MICHAEL LOUIS
VIA WHALEN FOR CONGRESS


10/27/2006
526.00
27940060726


ANNENBERG, LEONORE
WAYNE, PA 19087
ANNENBERG FOUNDATION

CHABOT, STEVE
VIA STEVE CHABOT FOR CONGRESS


11/04/2006
526.00
26930671845

CORKER, ROBERT P JR
VIA BOB CORKER FOR SENATE


12/07/2006
526.00
27020180023

GARD, JOHN G
VIA GARD FOR CONGRESS


11/05/2006
526.00
27930264792

ROSKAM, PETER
VIA ROSKAM FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE


10/27/2006
526.00
27930156452

SIMMONS, ROB
VIA SIMMONS FOR CONGRESS


11/04/2006
526.00
26940803885

WILSON, HEATHER A
VIA HEATHER WILSON FOR SENATE


11/06/2006
526.00
26940802379


ANNENBERG, LEONORE MR
RADNOR, PA 19087
ANNENBERG FOUNDATION

NORMAN, RALPH W MR. JR
VIA RALPH NORMAN FOR CONGRESS


10/27/2006
526.00
26950794441


ANNENBERG, LEONORE MS.
RADNOR, PA 19087
ANNENBERG FOUNDATION

RAINVILLE, MARTHA MS.
VIA MARTHA RAINVILLE FOR CONGRESS


11/06/2006
526.00
26930594404


ANNENBERG, LEONORE MS.
WAYNE, PA 19087
ANNENBERG FOUNDATION

DAVIS, GEOFFREY C
VIA GEOFF DAVIS FOR CONGRESS


11/03/2006
526.00
26930719847


ANNENBERG, LOENORE
RADNOR, PA 19087
ANNENBERG FOUNDATION

IA-01 CONGRESSIONAL VICTORY COMMITTEE


10/27/2006
526.00
27930761039

Recipient Total: 8416.00

Please feel free to advise those media outlets that refer to this
group as non-partisan that they are funded by a foundation created by
a man that gave $5000 to the California Republican Party in 2000. Now
the foundation which funds this non-partisan organization is run by
his Leonore Annenberg, who is worth $2 billion - but she can't spare a
Democrat a dime.

nation-x 09-04-2008 12:58 PM
More facts

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/ca..._v_reality.php

pocketkangaroo 09-04-2008 01:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 14708692)
Pretty much an Atheist currently, and at least an Agnostic. Please try again.

Cracks me up though to see all the people that think Dems support porn. Hysterical.
What makes you a conservative though? Serious question and not poking sticks. I have family that is and I understand their reasons. But what are your reasons?

directfiesta 09-04-2008 01:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo (Post 14708822)
What makes you a conservative though? Serious question and not poking sticks. I have family that is and I understand their reasons. But what are your reasons?

http://academic.kellogg.edu/mckayg/b...#37;20flip.jpg

IllTestYourGirls 09-04-2008 01:10 PM
Fact neo-cons are not conservative :thumbsup

Libertine 09-04-2008 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony404 (Post 14708761)
Well it seemed to me they liked slamming obama more than McCain so I fired up old google and found this:
Before going on...

Could it be, perhaps, that your own love for Obama clouds your objective judgement?

In another thread, you said you'd take a bullet for the guy. Since that's the kind of thing people usually only feel about family members, it makes me question your objectivity in this particular case.

To me, you seem similar to a loving parent who can't find a single flaw in his child.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony404 (Post 14708761)
We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit, "consumer advocate" for voters
that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S.
politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major
U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches,
interviews, and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices
of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge
and understanding.

The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter
Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the
University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at
the local, state, and federal levels.
The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions,
political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded
primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.

It sounds nice enough, but the problem is it's funding couldn't come
from a more partisan source. Despite a lengthy list of political
donations, Leonore Annenberg, the Trustee of the foundation, and the
late Walter Annenberg have never made a donation do a democratic
candidate. Not ever. Here's the list of donations: (You can search for
yourself here)

[...]

Please feel free to advise those media outlets that refer to this
group as non-partisan that they are funded by a foundation created by
a man that gave $5000 to the California Republican Party in 2000. Now
the foundation which funds this non-partisan organization is run by
his Leonore Annenberg, who is worth $2 billion - but she can't spare a
Democrat a dime.
Ad hominem.

If you want to criticize the project, criticize it on its merits. Find flaws in the articles, numbers on articles critical of each candidate, etc.

MrKinkade 09-04-2008 01:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony404 (Post 14708576)
I find it funny they had the going over of obama's speech line by line the next day but for Sarah there is silence so far.
thats because she didn't say anything except john mccain served our country... im in love with my man after 5 kids... i was a mayor in a small town im a gov. of ALASKA

then started to beat up on obama... NOT one policy issue not one thing she wants to do while in office NOTHING just about her family and how mccain served in the vietnam war

tony286 09-04-2008 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine (Post 14708992)
Before going on...

Could it be, perhaps, that your own love for Obama clouds your objective judgement?

In another thread, you said you'd take a bullet for the guy. Since that's the kind of thing people usually only feel about family members, it makes me question your objectivity in this particular case.

To me, you seem similar to a loving parent who can't find a single flaw in his child.



Ad hominem.

If you want to criticize the project, criticize it on its merits. Find flaws in the articles, numbers on articles critical of each candidate, etc.
Im at a coffee shop when I get home I will do a article count,if Im wrong I have no problem saying so.
I know obama isnt pure he is a fucking politician and like all of them.you have to sell your soul to get anywhere. Ive been very unhappy with how ball less the democrats have been.
That being said still think he is a better choice for the country.
Also in my home state Im voting for a republican if he decides to run for gov.

notoldschool 09-04-2008 02:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony404 (Post 14708510)
like the right doesnt do this? please stop. Actually my friend you should be afraid of what happens if they win. News Flash you produce porn. Go look up porn under the reagan and nixon years.
Tony the reason he doesnt care is because he makes less than a mcdonalds manager with his program. That is the only reason he can push for mccain and Palin so hard. He has no brains which again is obvious by what he is in this industry. nothing.

bbm 09-04-2008 02:05 PM
Nice speech. Is this her own?

MrKinkade 09-04-2008 02:06 PM
there is NOT one person dem or rep or IND thats going to go "yay PORN im for it fuck I whack off to it every night.. not only do I love it I think everyone should own some porn"

the Porn industry should THRIVE off people who hold such a stern objection to the making and distrubution of porn... if you outlaw it or make it taboo that is what makes people want it.... tell a teen they cannot go out and see how fast they sneak out the window.. tell people they cannot own or look at porn see how fast it flies off shelves JMHO

dig420 09-04-2008 02:09 PM
http://www.mediamatters.org

Just as liberals don't generally try to make elections about smearing their opponent, a la John Kerry and Al Gore, they generally don't tell baldfaced lies. I said GENERALLY, I'm sure exceptions can be found.

GENERALLY the Republicans are panderers and liars who have cobbled together a coalition of religious freaks, bigots and deeply stupid people who think abortion is more important than the budget. They love the gutter vicious, name-calling type of politics that the Repubs specialize in, while Democrats keep thinking that if they stay above it the people won't be fooled. That's their mistake. Obviously, people are very easily fooled.

dig420 09-04-2008 02:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine (Post 14708992)
Before going on...

Could it be, perhaps, that your own love for Obama clouds your objective judgement?

In another thread, you said you'd take a bullet for the guy. Since that's the kind of thing people usually only feel about family members, it makes me question your objectivity in this particular case.

To me, you seem similar to a loving parent who can't find a single flaw in his child.



Ad hominem.

If you want to criticize the project, criticize it on its merits. Find flaws in the articles, numbers on articles critical of each candidate, etc.

It could be, perhaps, that he's aware the Republicans have a loooong history of funding 'non-partisan' research, think tanks, etc. that are actually just big PR machines. Like factcheck.

marketsmart 09-04-2008 02:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by leedsfan (Post 14708521)
i think you'll find checking facts is pretty important no matter what party you support. I have a site for sale that gets 50 billion uniques a minute, want to buy it...no need to check the facts though right?
how much for the site? if its as good as you say i will buy today...

Libertine 09-04-2008 02:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony404 (Post 14709099)
Im at a coffee shop when I get home I will do a article count,if Im wrong I have no problem saying so.
I know obama isnt pure he is a fucking politician and like all of them.you have to sell your soul to get anywhere. Ive been very unhappy with how ball less the democrats have been.
That being said still think he is a better choice for the country.
Also in my home state Im voting for a republican if he decides to run for gov.
I just took a quick look myself, and you're pretty much wrong.

http://www.factcheck.org/archive/June_2008.html
http://www.factcheck.org/archive/July_2008.html
http://www.factcheck.org/archive/August_2008.html

There are actually slightly more articles that either defend Obama or criticize McCain than there are articles that defend McCain or criticize Obama.

In June it's about even, in July FC mostly made Republicans unhappy, and in August they mostly made Democrats unhappy.

theharvman 09-04-2008 02:49 PM
Obama 08!!!!!!

stickyfingerz 09-04-2008 02:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by notoldschool (Post 14709111)
Tony the reason he doesnt care is because he makes less than a mcdonalds manager with his program. That is the only reason he can push for mccain and Palin so hard. He has no brains which again is obvious by what he is in this industry. nothing.
Wow its so easy for you to claim anyone else is nothing, while you put forth 0 about who you are, or what you do. Troll away Corn Trollio.

directfiesta 09-04-2008 02:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbm (Post 14709120)
Nice speech. Is this her own?
Nope, Matthew Scully :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Scully


She did insert an already over used and tested ( in Alaska ) joke of the " lipstick " .

She did deliver the speech vey well, mainly when you compare to what we have been exposed to from Dubya and McCain.

klaze 09-04-2008 03:03 PM
Someone checks the facts.. but who checks the fact checker??

oooo huh huh?

TheSenator 09-04-2008 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by klaze (Post 14709433)
Someone checks the facts.. but who checks the fact checker??

oooo huh huh?
Republicans rely on "truthiness"

tony286 09-04-2008 04:45 PM
Well I counted from June and I was wrong. What probably lead me to think that was my dad sends links from that site to show me obama's fault. So those were the only times Ive been there.Well after counting and doing a bunch of reading ,I cant wait til Dad sends me another link. lol

gornyhuy 09-04-2008 04:55 PM
Thanks everyone for filling me with bitterness and despair- this is the last political thread I'm reading for this election.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123